Bridge Inspection Report - Prince Edward Island

BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT

2017 INSPECTION YEAR

Darrell Evans, P.Eng.

Bridge Inspection Report 2017

2017 Bridge Inspection Report Page 1

Foreword

In 2007, the Department of Transportation and Public Works (currently the Department of

Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy) commenced a Province wide initiative to inspect all

of our major highway and rails-to-trails structures and report on the condition of these structures

on an biennial basis. The first set of inspections was conducted in 2008.

The department, in collaboration with Stantec, has developed a Comprehensive Bridge

Inspection Training (CBIT) course which was the first ever course developed in Canada, by

Canadian engineers, for Canadian bridge inspectors. It is a full, two week course which outlines

the importance of bridge inspection work by breaking it down to the element level and material

defect level. The course was designed to be given once every five year cycle. The next course is

slated to be offered again in 2018.

The department solicited expression of interest from the local consulting community with a great

interest from all parties. Currently there are six (6) local consulting firms contracted out to assist

the department in retrieving valuable inspection data.

In conjunction with this, the department purchased a Bridge Management Software (BMS)

system, which was developed by Stantec and based on the Ontario Structures Inspection Manual

(OSIM), the standard to which the province inspects their structures.

As of the end of 2017, we are through our sixth full cycle of major highway and pedestrian

structure (252) and rails-to-trails structure (36) inspections. It is our intention to have the entire

highway structure network (1574 structures) inspected on a routine basis and entered into the

bridge management system. The element data entry for the remaining 1286 structures is

complete and the inspections for these structures are currently underway.

The success of this program could not be possible without the support of the Minister and

Deputy Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Energy, nor without the work and efforts

by our local consulting engineering community.



Inspection Program

The department has been conducting its inspection program since early 2008, using internal staff

as well as external consultants.

In 2011, the department had undergone an internal audit by the Auditor General’s office,

specifically related to capital projects and bridge management. In the report, the Auditor

mentioned that the department is conducting extensive bridge inspection and management

practices without it being legislated.

With respect to the actual program, the department has divided the structures into geographical

zones for which one of the external consultants is responsible for inspections. These zones are

further divided in to even year and odd year inspections.

At the request of Treasury Board, the department now solicits Request for Proposal (RFP)

documents from qualified engineering consulting firms for the inspection of our structures. The

department requested RFP documents in early 2016 for the 2016 and 2017 inspection cycles.

RFP documents were received in early March 2016 and the inspection zones were awarded in

April of 2016. Consultants were given a Netbook computer with the BMS software for the input

of inspection data.

The second year of inspections (of this two year inspection cycle) were carried out over the

Summer/Fall months of 2017 and the inspection data was input into the Bridge Management

System (BMS) software. Once the data was entered, checked, and verified by each of the

consultants, it was then given to the department for their checks and verification. Once the

department was satisfied with the inspection data, the inspection for each structure was then

closed to any further changes. The final inspections were completed and closed in early January,

2018.

Inspection Results

The inspection data, which was entered into the BMS and verified by both the consultant and the

department, is then manipulated by the BMS to set forth a series of results based on the

inspection data.

The results of the 2017 inspection program are listed below and outline graphically in the

appendices. There are currently only 288 structures which are inspected biennially and

subsequently reported on. This represents 18% of the entire structure network; therefore, the

results may not be indicative of the true condition of the entire Provincial network of highway



structures. This 18% of the network represents about 45% of the net replacement value;

therefore, they represent a significant investment both fiscally and with respect to risk

management.

Bridge Condition Index (BCI) Results.

The results of the inspections yield an overall Bridge Condition Index (BCI) for each structure.

This index ranges from a condition index of Poor (BCI less than 60), Fair (60 < BCI < 70), and

Good (70 < BCI < 99).

As of the completion of the 2017 inspections, the overall condition of the inspected network (288

structures) is as follows:

Condition State Percentage of Inspected Structures

Good (BCI > 70) 48 %

Fair (60 < BCI < 70) 26 %

Poor (BCI < 60) 26 %

Average BCI 70.9

Table 1 – BCI Breakdown of All Inspected Structures

The overall condition of the inspected highway network (IE less the rails-to-trails network and

pedestrian bridges, 251 structures) is as follows:

Condition State Percentage of Inspected Highway Structures

Good (BCI > 70) 53 %

Fair (60 < BCI < 70) 27 %

Poor (BCI < 60) 20 %

Average BCI 72.9

Table 2 – BCI Breakdown of Inspected Highway Structures

A graphical representation of the BCI breakdown for all inspected structures and all inspected

highway structures is given in Appendices ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.

If we consider the BCI distribution (as shown graphically in Appendices ‘C’ and ‘D’ for all

inspected structures and all inspected highway structures respectively), we can see that there still

exists a significant wave of structures being in the fair condition state that will soon be moving

into the poor condition state.

Of note, we have met our target Key Performance Indicator of an average BCI > 70 for all

inspected structures, as indicated in Appendices ‘A’ and ‘B’; however, with the noted ‘wave’ of

fair-to-poor indicated above, this will undoubtedly change.



Bridge Criticality and Urgency (BCU) Results

In 2010, the department initiated a training module to include the assignment of risk parameters

to the elements of each structure based on a Bridge Criticality and Urgency (BCU) rating. This is

a 1 to 10 rating system, where 1 indicates no risk and 10 indicates very high risk of the element

in question. A complete overview of the Bridge Criticality Rating is given in Appendix ‘E’.

The department has been inspecting structures with a BCU rating in 2011 and we have been

tracking the risk profile of the inspected network since this time. In general, the higher the BCU

rating, then the higher risk category the structure is in.

We currently have a matrix of risk from low, medium, medium–high and high risk category. The

matrix is indicated in Appendix ‘F’ for all inspected structures and Appendix ‘G’ for all

inspected highway structures. This is summarized in the tables below.

Network Risk Distribution – All Inspected Structures 288 sites

Risk Level # of Structures %

High 54 18.75

Medium-High 71 24.65

Medium 79 27.43

Low 84 29.17

Total 288 100

Table 3 – Network Risk Distribution All Inspected Structures

Network Risk Distribution – All Inspected Highway Structures 251 sites

Risk Level # of Structures %

High 37 14.74

Medium-High 67 26.69

Medium 72 28.69

Low 75 29.88

Total 251 100

Table 4 – Network Risk Profile – All Inspected Highway Structures

As can be seen, the tables and graphs indicate that the department manages a significant amount

of bridge infrastructure which is currently at high risk. In light of this, we are reviewing our five

year capital bridge construction plan to include these structures in the program. We are also

looking at conducting more periodic reviews of our higher risk structures in order to maintain an

acceptable level of safety across the network.



Analogous to the BCI breakdowns, these graphs represent only those structures that are currently

being inspected at this time (18% of the network) and do not reflect the overall cross section of

highway structures that currently exist across the province.

Condition and Risk Trends

We have been tracking the BCI trend of the network of structures since 2011. We have also

tracked the risk profile trend of the structures since 2011. The following table outlines the BCI

Trend from 2011 through to 2017.

Network BCI Distribution (%)

Condition State 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Good ( 70 < BCI) 35% 32% 37% 40% 43% 47% 53%

Fair

(60<BCI<70)

29% 28% 26% 31% 29% 27% 27%

Poor (BCI < 60) 37% 40% 37% 29% 28% 26% 20%

Average BCI 62.8 61.9 66.6 69 69.3 70.3 72.9

Table 5 – BCI Breakdown over Time

The above table shows the department is making strides in overall bridge condition index. This is

due to the maintenance and capital programs over the years; however, it’s also due to significant

training and calibration efforts within the inspection teams.

The following table indicates the risk profile trend over time.

Table 6 – Risk Profile over Time

Network Risk Trend

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Risk

Level

No.

Str.

% No.

Str.

% No.

Str.

% No.

Str.

% No.

Str.

% No.

Str.

% No.

Str.

%

High 28 11 79 29.5 74 28.9 68 25.6 63 23.7 45 17.9 54 18.8

Med.-

High

28 11 66 24.6 68 26.6 74 27.8 72 27.1 72 28.6 71 24.7

Med. 53 21 65 24.3 61 23.8 62 23.3 64 24 64 25.4 79 27.4

Low 141 56 58 21.6 53 20.7 62 23.3 67 25.2 71 28.2 84 29.2

Total 250 100 268 100 256 100 266 100 266 100 288 100 288 100



The risk profile trend indicates a significant jump of structures in the high risk category between

2011 and 2012. This is due to calibration training efforts within the inspection teams in order to

have better correlation of results between inspection groups.

The risk profile indicates a slight downward trend in the high risk category from 2012 to 2015,

with a slight increase of the high risk structures from 2015 to 2016 due to the increase in sample

size. While the general trend is positive, additional inspection information is required to

determine whether or not this trend will continue. BCI distribution and risk distribution are

shown graphically in Appendices ‘H’ & ‘I’.

Sufficiency Index (SI)

Currently, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) in the US uses a Sufficiency Rating

system to better capture the overall sufficiency from an operational perspective as well as

condition. The PEI Bridge Management System calculates a similar overall index referred to as

the Sufficiency Index or SI.

The Sufficiency Index (SI) is a compilation of the BCI, BCU as well as other important

operational factors; such as, load rating; scour potential; flood potential; fatigue critical elements;

approach road geometry; structure lane width; barrier index; etc..

As of 2013, we have been including a rating for SI in our latest structure records; however, we

note that no threshold exists for the upper and lower limits for SI. At this time, we are only

reporting on the overall index and have arbitrarily chosen the SI limits of less than 70 being

poor; between 70 and 80 as fair; above 80 as good.

The results are represented in the table below and graphically represented in Appendix ‘J’ for the

entire inspected highway network. We note that a large portion is below the 70 threshold;

however, we caution that there will be a few years of calibration required in order to ensure that

the threshold limits for the upper and lower bounds are relatively sound. Therefore, we are only

reporting on the actual numbers for information purposes only. Work shall continue on the

calibration of this index.

Current SI Value No. of Structure % of Structures

80 < SI 105 41.8 %

70 < SI < 80 55 21.9 %

SI < 70 91 36.3 %

TOTAL 251 100 %

Table 7 – Sufficiency Index Results



Performance Deficiencies, Maintenance Needs and Recommended Works

Performance Deficiencies

The consultants are required to report on any suspected performance deficiencies for each

element of a structure. Performance deficiencies are identified to supplement the information

recorded in the condition states and are generally used when an element is suspected to not be

performing as intended. These are outlined in Table 8 below with the number of occurrences for

each as of the conclusion of the 2017 inspection period.

Table 8 – Performance Deficiencies

There is a large quantity of PD-01 – Load Carrying Capacity. This is primarily due to our aging

infrastructure which is not currently constructed to the design standards of today.

Of note, there is a decrease in some areas, with an increase in other areas. These could be further

alleviated with a more robust maintenance program. See the next section on Maintenance Needs

and Recommended Works.

Performance Deficiency No. of Occurrences

in 2017 No. of Occ. In

2016

1-Load Carrying Capacity 990 1033

2-Excessive Deformations 101 86

3-Continuing Settlement 38 45

4-Continuing Movements 120 124

5-Seized Bearings 10 8

6-Brng. not Unif.Load/Unstbl. 20 20

7-Jammed Expansion Joint 9 9

8-Pedestrian/Vehicular Hazard 322 280

9-Rough Riding Surface 117 101

10-Surface Ponding 20 21

11-Deck Drainage 21 20

12-Slippery Surfaces 0 0

13-Flooding/channel Blockage 12 15

14-Undermining of Foundation 34 40

15-Unstable Embankments 96 77

16-Other 198 233

TOTAL 2108 2112



Maintenance Needs and Recommended Works.

Once a performance deficiency has been selected, the inspection teams are then required to select

a Maintenance Need or Recommended Work in order to mitigate the performance deficiency.

A maintenance need is generally selected when the element in question has less than 25 % of its

quantity in the poor condition state, or the work can be easily done by our internal maintenance

personnel or standing offer crews. A recommended work is generally any works that does not fit

in the above definition and is usually classified as a Capital project.

Inspection teams are to assign timing for the maintenance needs or recommended works and

recommended works are to include an estimated cost. Maintenance needs and recommended

works are not to overlap; that is, if a recommended work is selected for a specific element, there

would not be a maintenance need associated with the same element. It will be one or the other.

Table 9 identifies the various maintenance needs with associated timings.

Timing

Maintenance Need Now 1 Year 2 Years No. of Occurrences 2017

No. of Occurrences

2016

1-Lift/Swing Bridge Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0

2-Bridge Cleaning 7 58 40 105 82

3-Bridge Handrail Maintenance 40 163 167 370 356

4-Painting Steel Bridge Struc. 0 17 34 51 62

5-Bridge Deck Joint Repair 0 10 12 22 26

6-Bridge Bearing Maintenance 2 2 8 12 8

7-Repairs to Structural Steel 0 9 15 24 18

8-Repair of Bridge Concrete 2 43 373 418 301

9-Repair of Bridge Timber 18 118 420 556 493

10-Bailey Bridge Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0

11-Animal/Pest Control 2 2 2 6 5

12-Bridge Surface Repair 3 32 70 105 98

13-Erosion Control at Bridges 15 50 50 115 122

14-Concrete Sealing 0 0 5 5 2

15-Rout and Seal 1 19 61 81 81

16-Bridge Deck Drainage 3 9 7 19 23

17-Other 99 107 141 347 373

TOTALS 192 639 1405 2236 2050

Table 9 – Maintenance Needs



As can be seen, there is a significant amount of maintenance required for timber repair, concrete

repair and handrail maintenance. We can also see a significant jump in the total amount of

Maintenance Needs required. These could be significantly alleviated with the addition of a

dedicated crew assigned to Bridge Maintenance, specifically mandated to review and address the

maintenance concerns on our structures as outlined by the inspection reports.

Table 10 summarizes the recommended works and includes associated costs with the works.

There are too many categories of recommended works to summarize in this report; however,

they range from barrier repairs/replacement to girder repairs, abutment repairs, sub-structure

repairs, etc., etc..

Timing 2017 No. of

Occ. Cost 2016 No. of

Occ. Cost

Urgent 21 $409,315 28 $904,440

< 1 year 115 $2,373,895 116 $2,639,857

1 - 5 year 475 $10,974,704 463 $9,521,860

6 - 10 year 117 $2,130,124 98 $1,810,235

None 4 $20,200 4 $20,200

Total 732 $15,908,238 709 $14,896,592

Table 10 – Recommended Works

We can see from the tables that there is a significant amount of work required now and within

the next 5 years. While there has been a slight reduction of work required urgently, there is an

increase in the overall value of work required and this trend is likely to continue without any

preventative maintenance as suggested above.

Five Year Capital Program

Based on the bridge inspections, Bridge Condition Indices and Risk Profile, we have developed a

five (5) year Capital Construction Program which allows for an annual budget of +/- $5.0M. The

program can be found in Appendices ‘K’ and ‘L’.

The program has been created in conjunction with the program set forth from the Bridge

Management System (BMS) as well as the risk and BCI profiles. We’ve taken into consideration

the volume of traffic and the importance of the highway network IE. Arterials, Collectors, etc..

What is not included in this five year program are the following:



Some key preservation items for our larger, more important infrastructure sites. Most

notably, the Hillsborough and West River Bridges need to be re-painted in order to

lengthen their serviceability lives. These could cost in the order of $5.0 M and $2.0 M

respectively.

There is also no project or funding set aside in the five year plan for the structural

modifications to the Hillsborough Bridge as a result of any future Active Transportation

corridor or sanitary force main.

There are no funds for the smaller, buried type structures which will undoubtedly also

require capital expenditures.

There are no funds dedicated for any major rehabilitation or replacement works for any of

the Rails-to-Trails network of structures.

The program is what we plan to have done over the next five years. It is important to note that it

may need to be adjusted depending on weather events, further budget constraints, other structural

issues throughout the network that is not inspected, etc., etc..

Conclusions and Recommendations

The report outlines the need for additional funding in order to maintain a serviceability of the

highway structure network. There are areas of significant risk that the department is assuming on

a number of structures that are currently being inspected. We have no real indicator on how this

translates into the remaining portion of the highway network that is not currently being

inspected; however, it would be safe to state that a one-to-one ratio would be a conservative

estimate of the risk that exists on the remaining uninspected network.

We have included some Forecast scenarios in Appendices ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘P’, ‘Q’ and ‘R’. These

indicate the trend of Bridge Condition Index (BCI) over time. Three scenarios are given: 1) Do

Nothing; 2) Unconstrained Budget; and 3) Constrained Budget. It can be clearly seen the effects

of doing nothing versus our currently constrained budgets.

We are currently working on inspecting all remaining structures within the entire network and

inputting the inspection data into the Bridge Management System (BMS) software, based on the

Ontario Structures Inspection Manual (OSIM). This will take several years to complete.

The following are some recommendations to be considered:

To increase funding to a sustainable level for several years to come in order to reduce the

department’s liability and to maintain an acceptable level of serviceability to the traveling



public. We would also recommend increasing our inspection budgets to include the

remaining portion of structures currently not being inspected.

To increase to compliment of internal bridge maintenance crews to 2 to address the ever

growing list of maintenance needs that are currently being reported on. We also

recommend expanding the funding for the standing offer contractors to include those

knowledgeable in concrete repair methods and procedures to address the larger structures.

To set aside some preservation funds for our most important structures in order to extend

their service lives.

Reducing the number of structures on our network by closing or severing non-essential or

seasonal roads as required or any roads that have redundancy built into the network. We

closed one structure and weight restricted one structure within the network and we expect

this number of bridge closures and weight restrictions to increase as time continues.

Currently, we have eight structures that are weight restricted and 10 that are either closed

or have been removed.

Secure funds for the structural modifications required for the Hillsborough Bridge

structure to accommodate the Active Transportation Corridor as well as the sanitary force

main pipe.

In closing, we will continue to conduct routine inspections on our network of structures and will

include all our smaller structures as time and budgets permit. We realize that budgets are

constrained and we will continue to work within these confines as required; however, the reports

show that there will be consequences as a result.

Respectfully Submitted;

_______________________

Darrell Evans, P.Eng.

A/Asst. Director

Capital Projects Div.

Transportation, Infrastructure

And Energy

Date Submitted: ____________________



Appendix ‘A’

BCI Breakdown, All Inspected Structures



Appendix ‘B’

BCI Breakdown, All Inspected Highway Structures



Appendix ‘C’

BCI Distribution, All Inspected Structures



Appendix ‘D’

BCI Distribution, All Inspected Highway Structures



Appendix ‘E’

Bridge Criticality Rating



Appendix ‘F’

Network Risk Profile, All Inspected Structures



Appendix ‘G’

Network Risk Profile, All Inspected Highway Structures



Appendix ‘H’

BCI Trend Graph over Time

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ruct

ure

s

Year

BCI Distribution Trend on and Annual Basis

Good ( 70 < BCI)

Fair (60<BCI<70)

Poor (BCI < 60)



Appendix ‘I’

Risk Profile Trend over Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No

. of

Stru

ctu

res

Year

Risk Profile Trend (No. of Structures)

High

Medium-High

Medium

Low



Appendix ‘J’

Structure Sufficiency Index (SI) Breakdown

105

55

91

Sufficiency Index, Number of Structures

SI ≥ 80

70 ≥ SI > 80

SI < 70

41.8%

21.9%

36.3%

Sufficiency Index, Percentage of Structures

% Structures SI ≥ 80

% Structures 70 ≥ SI > 80

% Structures SI < 70



Appendix ‘K’

2018/19 Bridge Projects

Region Project Name District

Route/ Section

Bridge ID

Description of Work

East Hazelgreen Road 2 32901 K3-049 Replacement

East Woodville Mills 2 33401 K5-017 Replacement

East Lorne Valley Road 2 35501 K3-051 Replacement

East Dromore - McCannel Rd. 7 25501 Q3-039 Replacement

East Little Harbour 1 01601 K1-033 Replacement

East Murray Harbour 4 01801 K4-013 Replacement

West Dock Road 26 15001 P1-085 Replacement



Route/ Section

Bridge ID

Description of Work

East Sorrey Bridge 3 13701 K3-038 Replacement

East Five Houses 2 32701 K2-037 Replacement

West Ox River 25 01102 P2-035 Replacement

West Campbellton Bridge 25 14302 P1-093 Replacement

West Cabot Park 20 10501 P3-009 Replacement

West Simpson Mill 18

Maint. ID 50325 Q1-071 Replacement



Route/ Section

Bridge ID

Description of Work

East St. Peters Road 8 00207 Q5-001 Replacement

East Little Sands 4 00409 Q4-012 Replacement

East County Line Road 2/5 01102 K3-032 Replacement

West Portage Bridge 25 00219 P2-046 Replacement

West Coleman 26 13701 P1-010 Replacement

West Oyster Creek 26 01211 P1-009 Replacement

West Egmont Bay 24 01105 P3-047 Replacement



Appendix ‘L’



Route/ Section

Bridge ID

Description of Work

East Wood Islands (Mt. Vernon) 4 31501 Q4-007 Replacement

West Searletown Bridge 19 01003 P4-048 Replacement

West Bideford Bridge 23 01207 P2-016 Replacement

West Crapaud 17 01301 Q1-052 Replacement

East Southhampton 7 31302 K2-019 Replacement

West St. Felix 27 15301 P1-041 Replacement



Route/ Section

Bridge ID

Description of Work

West Brae Bridge 25 13801 P2-027 Replacement

West Alaska 25 13801 P2-029 Replacement

West Gains Creek 25 17401 P2-093 Replacement

West South Fretown 19 10903 P4-018 Replacement

West Sheep River 25 13501 P2-034 Replacement

East Peakes Road 7 32001 K2-039 Replacement

East Peakes Bridge 7 32302 K2-030 Replacement

East Head of Montague 2 21002 K3-033 Replacement

East Wood Islands 4 00409 Q4-007 Replacement



Appendix ‘M’

BCI Forecast Summary All Inspected Structures

Do Nothing



Appendix ‘N’


Unconstrained Budget



Appendix ‘O’


Constrained Budget



Appendix ‘P’

BCI Forecast Summary All Inspected Highway Structures

Do Nothing



Appendix ‘Q’


Unconstrained Budget



Appendix ‘R’


Constrained Budget

Documents

Bridge Inspection Report - Prince Edward Island